Yesterday I began my review of America: Nation of the Goddess, the new book by Alan Butler and Janet Wolter that accuses the Grange of being a pagan cult dedicated to suppressing the truth about Jesus and worshiping the Earth Goddess. I must admit that I am having difficulty reviewing this book because it contains no source notes, and the bibliography contains virtually no sources, meaning that the book is simply a series of opinion-based assertions predicated on the reader’s familiarity with and acceptance of Alan Butler’s earlier books and Scott Wolter’s TV show. As I continue my review, I’m going to need to be a bit more selective in my coverage since I realized that the book has 21 chapters, and yesterday 2,000 words covered only three.

Chapter 4This chapter covers the Merovingian conspiracy theory famous from the Da Vinci Code, which asserts that the Church killed Dagobert II in the early Middle Ages because the Merovingians knew that Jesus was Mary Magdalene’s husband and the father of her children, the true kings of the earth. The Merovingians, being the descendants of Christ, are therefore Butler and Wolter’s fetish object, and they want to look for the last Merovingians, presumably so they can either worship them or help them rule the world. Butler and Wolter tie this to the quest for the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation, which he says is “connected” to the Book of Enoch (because the Watchers must appear in all fringe history books) “even though their authorship may be divided by over a thousand years.” To take the most extreme dates for both texts, the divide is only about 400 years; if we prefer the more recent date for Enoch, 200 at best. Anyway, Butler and Wolter claim, on the authority of Christopher Knight, that Newgrange in Ireland was built by the Watchers and is one of the primal origins of the goddess-Mason-Venus cult. They also claim that Masons had Enochian rituals in 1740, before the recovery of the Book of Enoch in the late 1700s, and they show laughably little insight into how the Book of Enoch was transmitted to Europe, mistaking the arrival of the complete text in the 1700s for ignorance of its contents beforehand. The material appeared, in distorted form, in medieval Jewish texts, and fragments were preserved in George Syncellus’ work, available in the West from 1652, for example.

They talk about conspiracy theories around the Crusades, designed to acquire Enochian treasure from Jerusalem, and the other standard Templar conspiracies, but Butler (acknowledged as the guiding hand here) claims that this was all in service of creating the free enterprise system, clearly the goddess’s own preferred economic system. (Any change that makes society more like our own is necessarily good and part of the goddess-worshipers’ plans, whereas anything that deviates is retrograde suppression of such plans by the forces of evil.) They conclude with the foundation of the Templars as exemplars of the new world being born.

Chapter 5This chapter describes the Talpiot Tomb conspiracy, well known to readers of this blog, which alleges that a tomb in Jerusalem held the bones of Jesus. Butler and Mrs. Wolter disagree with Scott Wolter in denying that the skull and crossbones had anything to do with pirates until Robert Louis Stevenson made it so, instead arguing that the symbol always represented Jesus’ corpse rotting in a bone box. They claim that the Templars were privy to the tomb and passed on its secrets to the Freemasons. They argue that the Gnostic gospels are the true account of Christ and Mary Magdalene’s undying love, that Solomon worshiped the Goddess in the form of Astoreth, that the Ark of the Covenant (the Templar treasure) was proof of the Goddess’s worship, and that Judaism was inspired by Akhenaten. The last point they cite to Scott Wolter’s Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers, closing the circle of stupid. They then falsely assert that the Book of Enoch says that the Watchers told Enoch to build two pillars of wisdom, and that the Templars sought this wisdom. No version says that. Read it yourself; the text, first given in Josephus, isn’t in the Book of Enoch and has nothing directly to do with it.

It has always seemed likely to Alan that the “pillars” were probably the distorted and misunderstood name given to scrolls, which may have been placed in cylindrical containers to protect them, as indeed was a regular practice.

Butler, who never bothered to read the original texts (which I have helpfully provided) isn’t aware of the deep origins of the myth in the Babylonian legend of the pre-Flood wisdom tablets, so he’s free to reconstruct the story from the source he does know, the late Masonic version of the legend. He attributes to the wisdom that the Templars found in these texts the math skills needed for Gothic architecture, dismissing the claim that contact with Islamic scholars and architects could have contributed skills or knowledge.

Chapter 6This chapter attempts to link the Templars to the Freemasons, which I laid out in my article on the same. Butler (again the acknowledged force here) adds nothing to the earlier claims except to tie them to the theme of courtly love, arguing that all of chivalry and the medieval veneration of the Virgin Mary were outgrowths of suppressed Great Goddess worship, which he and Wolter suggest was the first and predominant human religion. Again, this suggestion of a prehistoric gynocentric world is a controversial claim famously advocated by Robert Graves but taken by our authors as a fact so obvious it requires no support. Butler also falsely asserts that Chretien de Troyes created the legend of the Holy Grail, which almost certainly had earlier antecedents. Butler asserts that the Grail symbolizes stars near the constellation Virgo and thus the goddess. He says this is based on a text by Marcus Manilius (Astronomica 5.234-250, not that Butler would tell you), referring to the constellation Crater (the Cup), located near Virgo and said in the poem to represent the cup of Bacchus (Dionysus), though the more common version relates it to Corvus and Apollo (Eratosthenes, Catasterismi ​41; Hyginus, Astronomica 2.40). The authors conclude that the constellations movements in the sky were a mystical symbol of the Goddess and that this transferred through Rosicrucian beliefs into the occult layers of Masonry.

Chapter 7After this we move on to trying to connect the Templars to the so-called Venus Families. This begins with an account of the end of Templars, and Butler and Wolter assert as fact that the Templar fleet departed from La Rochelle in the middle of the nights, speculating on King Philip’s shocked response. The fact is that there wasn’t a fleet, and the story springs from a lie told under torture many months after the fact. Anyway, the Templars supposedly entered into the protection of the Venus Families, eco-friendly and libertarian Goddess worshippers, whom Butler had previously referred to as “Star Families,” “The Continuum,” “The Illuminati,” or “The Golden Thread” before falling under the Wolters’ spell. (Given all those names, forgive me if I just call them “Venusians” for short, since that both reflects their Wolter-given name and the Theosophical/Watchers origin that also gave rise to the Venusian space men of the 1950s, who share more than a little in common with these folks.) Despite failing miserably at their stated aim, these families, the authors believe, seek to establish libertarianism around the world by destroying oligarchy and dictatorship. They are also acolytes of Enoch and the Watchers. They identify Thomas Jefferson as a Venus Family member, and they assert that the United States as the ultimate embodiment of Venusian ideals, created to free the Venusians from the corruption of evil old Europe.

Chapter 8This chapter is about the Kensington Rune Stone, mostly because this is a Wolter family project, so it’s sort of a requirement. It has no immediate connection to the preceding chapter (indeed, transitions are almost nonexistent in this book), and it lionizes Scott Wolter for discovering the “truth” about the stone and accepts the claim that the hoax stone is not only a medieval artifact but contains a secret code from the Knights Templar claiming all of the Midwest for the Venusians. Along the way the authors note that Scott Wolter’s TV show brought the two authors together. They then repeat Wolter’s false claim that Thomas Jefferson ordered Lewis and Clark to find Templar/Welsh/Venusian survivors among Native American tribes. No such document exists to support this claim. The authors say that many of their ideas, and Scott Wolter’s, come from Freemason William F. Mann (not to be confused with William J. Mann), a fringe writer who became friends with Wolter at a conference in Nova Scotia in 1999—either contradicting Scott Wolter’s repeated assertion that he had no inkling of any conspiracy theories about history before he began working on the Kensington Rune Stone in 2001 or proving that everyone who befriends Mr. Wolter becomes a conspiracy theorist.

Anyway, Butler and Mrs. Wolter say that they gleaned knowledge from Mann’s novel The 13th Pillar, which they claim contains hidden truths about Freemasonry that can’t be given in nonfiction form. It’s warmed over material from Frederick Pohl’s old claims about Sinclair visits to Native Americans, dressed up in Andrew Sinclair’s rewrite to sub in Knights Templar.

Chapter 9In this chapter the authors decide to rope in Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (1627) as a secret blueprint for the Venusians New World Order. The authors assert that Bacon’s book is nonfiction masquerading as an allegorical novel, with the inhabitants of the idyllic Bensalem being none other than the Venusians. Even though the novel omits many of the major claims the authors attribute to the Venusians, notably the worship of the sacred feminine, they claim the omissions were done on purpose to hide the truth. Thus, what confirms their story is evidence and disconfirming evidence is also made into confirming evidence! In this line of reasoning, they conspiratorially assert that the colony of Virginia was named not for the Virgin Queen but for the Earth Goddess as the constellation Virgo.

The authors also falsely assert that the Venusians and academics are working together to suppress the truth, the former to hide their power and the latter because they refuse to “accept any alternatives to the Christopher Columbus view” of the discovery of America. As I’ve shown countless times, this hasn’t been the case since the 1830s, but who’s keeping score? Textbooks of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries routinely ascribed the discovery of America to the Vikings, even before physical evidence was found at L’anse-aux-Meadows. Just one example should suffice: Charles H. McCarthy, writing in 1919 in his History of the United States, a then-standard Catholic school textbook, stated: “The first white men who ever came to America were Northmen. Our continent was discovered through accident in the year 1000, by a Northman named Leif, who was on his way to proclaim the Christian faith in Greenland.”

The authors conclude the chapter with conspiracies about Venusian influence on Colonial Williamsburg (via the Rockefellers) and the Declaration of Independence. They argue that the Venusians have “unbelievable patience” in waiting for their utopia to come to pass, seeing as it hasn’t for the past 500 years in which the authors feel they’ve been trying to create it. One might think that would mean they don’t exist, but who am I to judge?

This ends the first part of the book. The second part is on a completely different subject, Isis worship in Washington, D.C., so I will save that for the third and (I hope) final part of this review. I should be able to summarize it faster since it’s comprised largely of recycled material from America Unearthed.

Yep. Pretty much. Just with more American flavor, which is especially rich because ideally, American society is free of aristocracy - which means these Venus Families should have no special place for themselves.

Reply

Americanegro

8/21/2016 07:51:59 pm

"Freemason William F. Mann (not to be confused with William J. Mann), a fringe writer who became friends with Wolter at a conference in Nova Scotia in 1999"

should be:

"Freemason William F. Mann (not to be confused with William J. Mann), a fringe writer who became friends with Wolter at a gin-fueled angry-furry convention in Nova Scotia in 1999"

It's probably not healthy for me to read this site but I can't stop even though it makes me want to punch Wolter right in his admirably fit for a man in his 50s face.

Salt

11/18/2015 02:03:46 pm

And people accuse goddess worshippers of making shit up. After having perused hundreds if not thousands of witchcraft, Wiccan, pagan and neo-pagan websites and read an untold number of books on the same over the years, I have never, ever, come across anything close to this kind of mind-tripping hogwash. If the Wolters and the rest of their ilk want to believe their ancient (white) ancestors had to have been created by a superior civilization from outer space, and have to concretize myth and metaphor into absolute fact, that's their psychosis. They can't deal with the reality of the world today. True Believers (their fans, since they're making a nice living in this reality) never can.

Keep hounding them like a mad dog, Jason. They need a good bite on their collective ass.

Reply

Shane Sullivan

11/18/2015 02:04:53 pm

"...arguing that all of chivalry and the medieval veneration of the Virgin Mary were outgrowths of suppressed Great Goddess worship..."

Well, at least *somebody* invested in this Goddess-Templar conspiracy theory admits that veneration of the Virgin Mary is a thing. I don't know how this is supposed to square with Scott Wolter's notion of a tyrannical Catholic Church suppressing the truth, though, since you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that that veneration occurred despite the Church's influence rather than because of it.

Despite their claims to all be on the same page, Alan Butler's views seem to be predominating in this book, and it shows.

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/19/2015 10:06:33 am

Oh for crying out loud...

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound...

WELCOME, MY BROTHER IN CHRIST!

Pam

11/18/2015 03:29:08 pm

Mary's special place within the early Church was there almost from the beginning and is not unusual given the Jewish understanding of kingship and from that, of course, Christian understanding.

The king's mother back then was held in high esteem and often acted as a mediator for the people (over simplifying here). If you believe that Jesus is King of the Universe, then his mother would naturally become "Queen of Heaven".

The Church debated whether she was "Mother of God" or simply the "God-bearer", but they never denied her special status, which is what I find so bizarre about Scott Wolter's claims.

I speculate that the Wolters confuse the Church's suppression of the worship of Mary, as happened at various times, especially the Middle Ages. Veneration is allowed and encouraged but not worship/adoration. It may seem nitpicking, but the vocabulary of the Catholic Church can be confusing and the fine shades of meaning matter if one wants to understand what the Church believes.

I'm not defending Wolter/Butler. I was just speculating where they may have gotten the idea that the Catholic Church, specifically, tried to suppress the veneration of the BVM.

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that your take on the matter is more accurate.

Shane Sullivan

11/18/2015 05:33:04 pm

"I speculate that the Wolters confuse the Church's suppression of the worship of Mary, as happened at various times, especially the Middle Ages."

They've never indicated that their thinking is that coherent. Scott just assumes there was a tradition of goddess worship in the middle ages, and since it wasn't at all visible, it must have been suppressed by the patriarchal Catholic Church.

I don't think the Wolters even realize that there's a contradiction in the idea that the Church would suppress goddess worship not because it's heresy, but out of misogyny, all while holding the Blessed Virgin in the highest esteem.

Nobody Knows

11/18/2015 07:03:00 pm

Pam,

We are on different wavelengths. Your cute position on the church I find quite nauseating. Best we keep apart on this blog.

Pam

11/18/2015 07:15:48 pm

Nobody:

That's fine. You have a problem with anyone who dares to "answer back" when you make definitive statements on matters that aren't at all defined, one way or another.

Feel free to take your toys and bad temper elsewhere. I respect an atheist that argues from a position of reason, but that's not what you are.

Nobodty Knows

11/18/2015 08:37:28 pm

Pam.

Your version of Chuirch history originated in the second century and was clarified at the Council of Nicaea. There were different versions of Christianity to choose from and nobody knows anything with any certainty about how Christianity originated in the first century. The letters of Paul only give fragmentary hints but the earliest versions of these letters only date from the third century and it's therefore unknown how much they were tampered with by later Christians. The church history in the letters of Paul contradicts what's written in the Acts of the Apostles.

There was no central organisation to secure and enforce uniformity of belief in early Christianity so the unbiased and objective origin of the religion is lost to us. The same thing applies to first century Judaism the various factions of which were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Pam

11/18/2015 08:46:41 pm

Gee, Nobody. I thought we broke up and weren't speaking. You need to let go and move on.

Only Me

11/18/2015 08:50:48 pm

Wait a minute, Nobody. You've said the following:

"nobody knows anything with any certainty about how Christianity originated in the first century" AND "the unbiased and objective origin of the religion is lost to us. The same thing applies to first century Judaism"

The past few days you've been stating as absolute fact:

"But the Judeo-Christian Religions are based on a mind-expanding drug."
"Drugs are the origins of religion."
"Drugs are the cause, religion is the effect."

Your making contradictory statements about the same subject and declaring both are true.

Nobody Knows

11/18/2015 08:55:49 pm

Only Me,

Historical facts cannot be retrieved once they are lost - you know, who did what, when and why. Once these things are lost, they are gone forever.

The Christian sacrament certainly existed because it is referred to in Paul's letters where the celebration od breaking of bread is also discussed.

You gotta agree these are two very different things.

Nobody Knows

11/18/2015 08:59:23 pm

It's similar to the Passover Meal. We know that exists. But about Moses who introduced the custom, there's a question mark over his existence.

Only Me

11/18/2015 09:15:31 pm

I agree, except, we're not discussing what we DO know based on available evidence.

I'm asking about your contradictory claims about the origins of Christianity and Judaism. You say no one knows the origins, but earlier asserted entheogenic drugs ARE the origin.

Nobody Knows

11/18/2015 09:39:25 pm

We know next to nothing about the lives of certain artists, but their paintings are hanging in art galleries.

Just because we don't know the biography of the artist, it doesn't mean the painting does not exist.

Only Me

11/18/2015 10:33:43 pm

Again, I agree. But, you're avoiding the question.

You gave the WHY to the origins of Judaism and Christianity, specifically, and all religions in general: "Drugs are the origins of religion." You gave the WHO: "The earliest priests were those who prepared the sacred potions and the earliest congregations were those who partook of them." You even gave the WHEN: "Drugs are the cause, religion is the effect."

Now, you've taken the opposing view to your previous position:
"...nobody knows anything with any certainty about how Christianity originated in the first century... The same thing applies to first century Judaism..." Have I made the problem clear? Both positions can't be true.

Nobody Knows

11/18/2015 10:41:17 pm

LOL

A DRUG IS A THING, NOT A PERSON

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ????

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE

YOUR QUESTIONS ARE SHOCKING

Nobody Knows

11/18/2015 10:44:41 pm

NOBODY KNOWS THE NAME OR BIOGRAPHY OF THE PERSON WHO PREPARED THE FIRST EUCHARIST. NOBODY KNOWS THAT. BUT THE EUCHARIST AND THE CEREMONY OF THE MASS EXIST.

NOBODY KNOWS THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE WHO INTRODUCED THE EUCHARIST AND THE CEREMONY OF THE MASS. WHERE THEY WERE BORN, WHEN THEY WERE BORN, WHAT THEIR NAMES WERE, OR WHERE THEY DIED.

Pam

11/18/2015 10:46:33 pm

Only Me,

I think you caused a fuse to blow due to your demand that a contradiction in argument be faced and answered.

Ysne

11/18/2015 11:28:55 pm

Pam, don't let Nobody drive you away or shut you up. Your description of what happened is very plausible.

Only Me

11/18/2015 11:30:32 pm

Yes, Pam, it seems I did. Reminds me of the Chinese guy in /Big Trouble in Little China/ that gets so angry, he inflates to the point of exploding.

Ysne : Thanks for your concern. Nobody Knows won't shut me up. He hates what he thinks I believe and has no interest in what I actually believe.

He doesn't enjoy exploring various views. He wants everyone to think as he does. There's no exchange of ideas with someone in that mind set.

I like this blog because Jason is fair even when he disagrees with you. Most posters here are the same and quite a few have a wicked sense of humor. :)

nOBODY kNOWS

11/19/2015 03:35:05 am

A THING IS NOT A PERSON
IT DOES NOT HAVE A FUCKING HISTORY OF BIRTH AND DEATH

YOUY DO NOT NEED A FUCKING NTIME MACHINE TO RESEARCH A FUCKING THING

Nobody Knows

11/19/2015 03:44:37 am

There is no need for a Time Machine in this case

The identity of the mind expanding drug that lies at the heart of the Judeo-Christian religion lies in plain open sight within the Biblical texts. It's right there, within the pages of the Bible itself.

Every time you see a church display, the drug is there and people cannot see it.

And you can get Bibles for free.

Matt Mc

11/19/2015 08:41:23 am

Sorry the "open in plain sight" thing made me laugh, are you channeling Scott Wolter?

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/19/2015 09:57:36 am

"A thing is not a person... you do not need a time machine to research a thing... there is no need for a time machine in this case." So the Sphinx and the Pyramids are now people? You said we could never know their history with any certainty, never mind a combined oral history and scads and scads of associated funerary monuments from Saqqara and Giza. For that matter, your answer to how they were built is "sand. They used sand." Which isn't even accurate to the construction materials, because limestone is mostly deposited calcite from shellfish, and granite is as close to "forged in the fires of Mount Doom" as we get; mica, quartz, and feldspar particles might make up sand, but at that point, they're no longer granite. Therefore, "they used sand" as a complete and whole explanation is straight-up idiotic.

So too with "things" of the early Church. No, they weren't fixed in stone; there wasn't even an agreement on what the Church was until Nicaea. But rather than admit that there is any room for error on your position, you insist it's drugs, drugs all the way down! Worse, even when confronted with several instances where scholars have for quite a while now said intoxication was a serious possibility for explaining what happened (all from memory, I might add, which means I should thank you for telling me I have an encyclopedic memory), you claim that scholars are sweeping all this under the rug.

You routinely claim anyone who disagrees with you or suggests an alternate explanation must be a fundamentalist Christian just because they know something about Christianity - as if there's something inherently wrong with a fundamentalist interpretation of "love thy neighbor as you love thyself," which last I checked was supposed to be the whole of the Law. If that holds, then, you knowing about the early Church at all means that you, too, are a fundamentalist Christian! Welcome, my brother in Christ!

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/19/2015 10:02:30 am

My first post got et by the DoD's slow handling of posting to the Internet and my own impatience, but there's really only one part worth salvaging.

You know, KIF/666/Hermes/Nobody Knows, you routinely accuse anyone who disagrees with you on Christianity of being a fundamentalist Christian Bible thumper (which leads me to wonder what's wrong with a strict fundamentalist interpretation of "love thy neighbor as you love thyself," which is supposed to be the whole of the Law).

Now, you clearly know quite a bit about early Church history and feel qualified to weigh in on the significance of Christian sacraments. That must, in turn, mean that YOU are a fundamentalist Christian! Welcome, my brother in Christ!

Uncle Ron

11/19/2015 12:18:30 pm

Pam, et. al.,

Why do you people even bother to engage this moron? Nothing productive comes of it. When I see his name I just scroll to the next post. If Nobody Replies to his pointless drivel, sooner or later he will go away.

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/19/2015 12:22:50 pm

Ron - Don't be so harsh on Brother Nobody.

Seriously because I long for the moments when he completely loses it over what I think of as a "foo-faddle of the ding-doggy" moments. I'm not going to change his mind and I have zero respect for his argumentative skills. But he's amusing when he thinks he's right.

Pam

11/19/2015 12:56:38 pm

Uncle Ron,

I'm over simplifying here but basically I wanted to understand his views. I'v never known anyone who believed that drugs were the Alpha and Omega of the world we know.

Now I understand that he is very one dimensional in his arguments and has no interest in any other view than his own.

I will not be engaging with him in the future, which is what you recommended some time ago. I suppose I had to find out for myself that responding to him was futile.

Only Me

11/19/2015 01:55:35 pm

Uncle Ron, I don't like the way Nobody takes advantage of Jason's generosity and exploits this blog to push his pseudointellectual nonsense. He is (a) too lazy to invest in his own website and (b) smart enough to know if he did, he wouldn't receive a fraction of the attention he gets here.

Also, ignoring him won't make him go away. He's egotistic enough to believe any lack of criticism towards him means he's right about everything he says.

Steve StC

11/19/2015 09:41:21 pm

I DO love it when the dogs turn on one another.

Pam, interesting point. More interesting is your dissection of the turd ball who hides behind the nickname "Nobody Knows."

Well done.

And you simply have to love it when the cutie pie who hides behind the nickname "Only Me" says,

He's addressing a poser who chose the nickname "Nobody" and works "nobody" into his BS.

This hate blog really is better than Cable TV.

You attract the best people Colavito.

Only Me

11/19/2015 10:04:30 pm

You know what's even better, Steve? When someone, like you, is so mentally-challenged they don't even realize I was directly quoting Nobody Knows.

So, have fun rage-failing and pretending you have an impact on the world. Cutie-pie.

Steve StC

11/20/2015 12:34:44 am

Quite wrong, “Only Me” (or whatever your name is in real life - if you have a real life...) I know I have no impact on this teeny tiny world of Colavito’s blog, in which he watches and reads shows and books which he knows he will despise, and then pronounces to a microcosm of acolytes how much he hated the shows and books, and then they agree how much they hate the book or show that they haven’t seen or read. That’s quite clear.

Another phrase for what you and Colavito are up to here is “Rage Failing.” And the only impact Colavito’s rage failing has on the world is to entertain his pathetic acolytes, like you.

Only Me

11/20/2015 02:27:26 am

UPDATE

Scientists are investigating a new form of fast-growing cancer, formerly known as Steve's asinine comments.

Pam

11/21/2015 01:24:22 am

Steve StC:

I was wondering if you are aware that when you write you have a very feminine "voice "?

It's very distinctive.

V

11/18/2015 02:32:50 pm

The sad part is that none of this ever seems to look at ACTUAL evidence of ancient goddess-worship in Europe, of which there actually is some. I learned about the figure known at the time as "Venus of Willendorf" way back in 1999 (it's now known as "Woman of Willendorf"), which was discovered in 1908. I later found out that there are as many as 144 known examples of this type of figurine, all dating from the paleolithic era, and that they probably indicate some sort of goddess worship. They also have a spread basically from Atlantic to Pacific across Europe and Siberia.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there were no male deities at the time, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean that religion--whatever it was--survived into the modern day. Or even until WRITING was established. It most likely didn't, in fact, and at best was subsumed into later and more complex religions.

Still, if you're bound and determined to foist "goddess worship" off onto the public, why AREN'T you starting with the only actual evidence (not proof, just evidence) we have of any such thing?

There's no doubt that there was authentic goddess worship in prehistoric times; indeed, some have argued that the Indo-Europeans essentially imposed patriarchal views on a much more egalitarian set of cultures, some of which had supreme goddesses instead of gods. However, there isn't any particular evidence that these pre-Indo-European cultures were female-led, as feminist historians have claimed, or that goddess worshipers formed a secret cult to combat male supremacy. The popularity of Rhea, Cybele, Isis, the Magna Mater, and other goddesses, even among men, argues against a didactic gender wars view of ancient religion. When people argue about this, mostly they seem to be arguing about modern gender issues and conservative Christian patriarchy.

Reply

Only Me

11/18/2015 05:00:35 pm

This is an awful lot of codswallop being stated as fact, without many citations to sources that DON'T have Butler's or Wolter's names attached to them.

I feel like this is an example of the David Childress school of authoring. Do all fringe authors work this way?

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/18/2015 08:17:38 pm

No no no. You to WONDER... do all fringe authors work this way?

Alternately... RECYCLED THEORIES. STALE NARRATIVES. Are these evidence that fringe authors gave up original thought in the distant past? The dull knife hypothesis says yes!

Reply

Only Me

11/18/2015 08:38:14 pm

So this is SOME KOIND of...esoteric methodology?

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/19/2015 10:15:41 am

My wife makes murderface at me when I start doing my Childress impression. To be fair, I make the same face at Childress himself. He's made it difficult for me to wear one of my favorite hats in combination with my summer field shirts. I don't dare get any off-white long-sleeve workshirts, or I'll look in the mirror and try to kill J. Hutton Pulitzer, and next thing you know I'll be in a psych ward...

Pam

11/18/2015 05:55:41 pm

"I don't think the Wolters even realize that there's a contradiction in the idea that the Church would suppress goddess worship not because it's heresy, but out of misogyny, all while holding the Blessed Virgin in the highest esteem."

I agree and they don't see contradiction in their thinking because they don't bother to learn about what they criticize.

On SW's twitter he told a follower that a painting the guy had was of Mary M. and Jesus with their daughter because of the color of the clothes Mary wore and the child had long hair.

It looked to me to be the BVM and Joseph (he was older and holding a lily) with the child Jesus between them. All had halos and the child was standing in the traditional pose , arms outstretched, clothed in white, glowing.

It's all standard Christian symbolism in art but he either ignored it for his own opinion or is ignorant.

Reply

Pam

11/18/2015 05:58:49 pm

Sorry. ..this was in reply to Shane.

Reply

Shane Sullivan

11/18/2015 06:15:25 pm

If only the man in the painting had had a Sacred Heart, Wolter might have a leg to stand on.

Reply

Pam

11/18/2015 06:52:05 pm

"The second part is on a completely different subject, Isis worship in Washington, D.C., "

I guess this will be more on the Washington Monument as genitalia . Every week I drive by the monument and unwillingly think of SW.

Reply

tm

11/18/2015 07:55:33 pm

Wolter's resolve may be hardened, but I seriously doubt it's monumental. ;)

Reply

Pam

11/18/2015 08:01:36 pm

*snort* I deserved that for not phrasing my comment more carefully! Now I'm stuck with that image in my head. Thanks. :)

What is this fascination with the Merovingians; as if they were some magical, mystical, fantasy dynasty benevolently ruling over post-Roman Europe. They make it sound like the worst thing that has happened to Europe was their replacement by the Carolingians.
According to the French historian Guizot, the Merovingians were the ruling tribe of Franks who invaded what was once Gaul. He refers to them as being barbarians along with the rest of the Germanic tribes that invaded the Western Empire at the beginning of the 5th century C.E. By the 8th century C.E. the dynasty had lost it's vibrancy and become rather debilitated by luxury and ease, and depended on their subordinate officials to take care of things instead of ruling directly.
So, what is the big thing about their supposed mystical ability, other than a contrived notion of being related to Jesus Christ. How does that even work if their tribal origins are from Germania.

Reply

Pam

11/18/2015 08:17:54 pm

The first time I ever saw the origins of the Merovingian dynasty made into something mystical was in the so-called non-fiction book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

The authors claim that dynasty was descended from Jesus and Mary M. by ignoring actual history and creating their own.

It makes no real sense, but that historical fantasy spawned "The Da Vinci Code" an actual work of fiction.

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

11/18/2015 08:21:49 pm

The argument is that the bloodline, which emigrated to the south of France, deliberately married their way into the Merovingian dynasty because of a perceived sacred role of the king as high priest. The contrarian in me wants to point out that this is an argument in favor of the sacred bloodline being the source of degeneracy in the line. Like Jesus is a Whateley. "Come, and I shall make you fish men."

Reply

Pam

11/19/2015 12:24:30 am

I never noticed the degeneration angle before, but you're correct. If the bloodline was special or super in some way it didn't do any favor for the Merovingian clan.

Kal

11/19/2015 12:15:16 am

Nobody knows...get it...

Anyway this whole bloodline thing is intensely moronic considering the source is a French forger from long ago who wanted to appear as though he was a royal by making it look like he was descended from Mary Magdeline.

The other Mary, Mother of Jesus, is not worshiped by Catholics. It only seems that way.

Reply

Only Me

11/19/2015 12:51:46 am

That depends on the context of "worship". According to Deacon Dr. Mark Miravelle, "worship" has been associated with both veneration and adoration. However, he has said:

{We must make a further clarification regarding the use of the term “worship” in relation to the categories of adoration and veneration. Historically, schools of theology have used the term “worship” as a general term which included both adoration and veneration. They would distinguish between “worship of adoration” and “worship of veneration.” The word “worship” (in a similar way to how the liturgical term “cult” is traditionally used) was not synonymous with adoration, but could be used to introduce either adoration or veneration. Hence Catholic sources will sometimes use the term “worship” not to indicate adoration, but only the worship of veneration given to Mary and the saints. Confusion over the use of the term worship has led to the misunderstanding by some that Catholics offer adoration to Mary in a type of “Mariolatry,” or idol worship given to Mary. Adoration of Mary is a grave rejection of Christian revelation and has never been nor will never be part of authentic Catholic faith and life.}

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/2006/11/what-is-devotion-to-mary/

Reply

Mike Jones

11/19/2015 10:04:49 am

NOBODY KNOWS WHO INVENTED THE "CAPS LOCK" KEY. HIS IDENTITY IS LOST IN THE MISTS OF TIME. YOU WOULD NEED A TIME MACHINE TO KNOW. Or maybe Google.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.